URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 20th November, 2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Meerut Region, Meerut (Respondent No. 2), the order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition) and the order dated 11.03.2005 (Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition) passed by the District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad (Respondent No. 3). It appears that the petitioner was the licensee of the Fair Price Shop in question in Village Arthala, District Ghaziabad. An enquiry/inspection was conducted in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question at 3.30 p.m. on 09.10.2004 in the presence of Indra Pal Singh, husband of the petitioner. As certain irregularities in regard to the distribution of kerosene oil were found, an order dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition) was passed by the District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad (Respondent No. 3), inter-alia, suspending the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. THE petitioner thereafter filed an appeal being appeal No. 10 of 2004-05. As the said appeal was filed against the suspension order, the Appellate Authority by its order dated 31.01.2005 directed the authority below to pass appropriate order on the basis of the merits of the case. THE District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad (Respondent No. 3) thereafter issued a show-cause notice/charge- sheet dated 15.02.2005 (Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition) to the petitioner. It was, inter-alia, stated in the said show-cause notice/charge-sheet that at the time of inspection at 3.30 p.m. on 09.10.2004 the petitioner was not present in the Fair Price Shop in question while her husband was present; and that as per the kerosene oil stock-register, the petitioner had lifted 5300 litre kerosene oil, and the sale of 1480 litre kerosene oil was shown on 08.10.2004; and that according to the sale of kerosene oil, the opening stock of kerosene oil in the Fair Price Shop in question on 9.10.2004 should have been 3860 litre, but at the time of inspection the stock of kerosene oil in the Fair Price Shop in question was found to be Nil; and that the husband of the petitioner was unable to give any explanation; and that on being asked to produce the distribution records of kerosene oil, the husband of the petitioner was unable to produce the same. THE petitioner submitted her reply (Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition) to the aforesaid show-cause notice/charge sheet. It was, inter-alia, stated in the said reply that as per the kerosene oil stock-register, 5300 litre kerosene oil was lifted by the petitioner on 07.10.2004; and that on 8.10.2004, 1480 litre kerosene oil was sold, and the same was entered in the stock register; and that on 9.10.2004 the son of the petitioner distributed kerosene oil to the card-holders from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the entries were to be made in the stock- register only after the evening distribution; and that on 9.10.2004, the son of the petitioner sold 1260 litre kerosene oil; and that as the petitioner had gone to look after her newly born grand-son in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, she was not present at the time of inspection at 3.30 p.m. on 9.10.2004; and that as the son of the petitioner was also with the petitioner at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, he was also not present at the time of inspection; and that as the Fair Price Shop in question was under construction on 9.10.2004, and there was not sufficient space in the shop for keeping 13 drums of the remaining 2600 litre kerosene oil, the same was temporarily stored in the house of Rishi Pal in front of the Fair Price Shop in question; and that as the petitioner and her son were not present at the time of inspection, and the husband of the petitioner was not aware of the said facts, requisite information could not be given by the husband of the petitioner at the time of inspection. THE District Supply Officer, Ghaziabad, by his order dated 11.03.2005 (Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition) held that the explanation of the petitioner was wholly unsatisfactory; and that the explanation regarding storing of the remaining kerosene oil at a place other than the Fair Price Shop in question without obtaining prior permission, was merely an after-thought, and the husband of the petitioner did not give any such information at the time of the inspection. It was concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misusing the kerosene oil allocated to the Fair Price Shop in question, and was guilty of having committed serious irregularity. THE license of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was accordingly cancelled. THE petitioner thereafter filed an appeal being Appeal No. 20 of 2005. By the order dated 20th November, 2006 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition), the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Meerut Region, Meerut (Respondent No. 2) dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner. THE respondent No. 2 also disbelieved the explanation submitted by the petitioner. THE petitioner has thereafter filed the present writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has stated that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit. I have heard Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the record. Sri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the explanation given by the petitioner in regard to non-entry of the sales which took place on 9.10.2004 in the stock-register and in regard to the storage of the remaining kerosene oil in the house of Rishi Pal was genuine explanation, and the same ought to have been believed by the authorities below. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same. THE authorities below on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record have disbelieved the explanation given by the petitioner and concluded that the explanation was merely an after-thought. No perversity or illegality has been shown in the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. In the circumstances, I do not find any good ground for interfering with the impugned orders passed by the authorities below. In my opinion, the writ petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed.